MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Overview and management of post-intensive care syndrome

2023· article· en· W4387212716 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mazen A. Nassar, Baraa Mohammed Hamed, Sakinah I. Alkhudhair, Dhafer A. Alshehri, Saad A. Alqahtani, Ola A. Alsaihati, Renad A. Aldahleh, Mohammad B. Albarqi, Ismail M. Radwan, Kaled A. Marzogi, Alhareth Khalid Alhussain

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumSadnessAffect (linguistics)CognitionQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineWorryIntensive care unitHealth carePsychologyPsychiatryAngerNursingAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Any patient suffering from critical life-threatening illnesses in most cases require hospitalization, in the care unit (ICU) where they can receive essential life-sustaining treatments. This has created an impact including more than 50 million individuals world-wide. Although advancements, in technology and healthcare have increased survival rates many individuals who survive these illnesses experience long-term impairments known as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). PICS encompasses cognitive and emotional challenges that significantly affect patients' quality of life and ability to return to their normal routines. Caregivers may also face similar emotional hurdles, a condition referred to as PICS-family (PICS-F). The prevalence of PICS varies but can affect up to 50% of ICU survivors. Cognitive difficulties can be noticed in, around 70% of instances impacting abilities like memory, focus, and decision-making. These difficulties can lead to emotions such, as sadness worry, and a condition known as traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Multiple factors, such as delirium, sedation, and pre-existing health conditions play a role, in the emergence and severity of PICS. Diagnosing PICS involves comprehensive assessments covering physical, cognitive, and emotional dimensions. Screening should ideally commence during the ICU stay and continue post-discharge. Assessment tools such as the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) and emotional functioning screenings aid in identifying PICS. This manifests physically through muscle weakness and fatigue, impacting mobility and daily activities. Effectively managing ICUs requires the implementation of models and strategies that optimize resource utilization. However, these strategies may entail challenges such as data integration and stakeholder involvement. Preventing PICS involves proactive measures like reducing sedation, promoting early mobility, and offering rehabilitation services. Addressing PICS necessitates a proactive approach, comprehensive patient care, and collaboration among multidisciplinary teams. The successful implementation of these strategies depends on thorough evaluation and active engagement with all stakeholders involved in ICU management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Community Medicine and Public HealthSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207